Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely discharges it by disclosing the routing decision rule itself. It implies a safe, non-mutating explain operation and reveals the chain-id scoping constraint, though it never states the output form or that unknown intents may be unrouted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the directive 'Start here,' with zero filler. Every clause carries a routing decision or a destination list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a dispatcher tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision surface: broker vs on-chain, the chain id, and the sibling tools to continue with. Only the return shape and handling of ambiguous intents are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter (userIntent) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its expected format, granularity, or examples. The routing categories hint at what intents look like, but the parameter itself is left undocumented in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific role (routing guide) and draws a hard line between brokerage equities (Robinhood Trading MCP) and on-chain Stock Tokens on chain 4663 (this server). It names the concrete destination siblings (stocktoken_list, stocktoken_price, stocktoken_quote, stocktoken_execute_plan), so an agent can act without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Start here' is an explicit when-to-use instruction, and the description names the alternative destination (Robinhood Trading MCP) plus the condition that selects each path (brokerage equities vs chain-4663 Stock Tokens). This is exactly the routing guidance an entry-point tool needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.